Bug#720440: mpg123: mpg123 does not build LFS wrappers on kfreebsd-i386

2013-09-17 Thread Thomas Orgis
Am Sat, 31 Aug 2013 16:02:45 +0200 schrieb Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com: The attached patch seems to do the right thing on Debian kFreeBSD/i386, i386 and amd64. I've therefore uploadedit to Debian unstable. Sadly, that patch still is not quite right. Now Linux/i386 mixes long and

Bug#720440: mpg123: mpg123 does not build LFS wrappers on kfreebsd-i386

2013-08-31 Thread Reinhard Tartler
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Thomas Orgis thomas-fo...@orgis.org wrote: The mpg123 header specifies off_t as argument. When off_t is always 64 bits (could you possibly set _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=32 ?!), there is no justification for _32 functions at all! So, you only want lfs_alias for [no

Bug#720440: mpg123: mpg123 does not build LFS wrappers on kfreebsd-i386

2013-08-31 Thread Thomas Orgis
(I'm also CCing the FreeBSD port maintainer, as I imagine they want that handled, too.) Am Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:03:46 +0200 schrieb Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com: Thomas, may I have your opinion on this patch? If you are d'accord, I'd upload it to debian/unstable for further testing.

Bug#720440: mpg123: mpg123 does not build LFS wrappers on kfreebsd-i386

2013-08-31 Thread Reinhard Tartler
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Thomas Orgis thomas-fo...@orgis.org wrote: (I'm also CCing the FreeBSD port maintainer, as I imagine they want that handled, too.) Am Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:03:46 +0200 schrieb Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com: Thomas, may I have your opinion on this patch?

Bug#720440: mpg123: mpg123 does not build LFS wrappers on kfreebsd-i386

2013-08-28 Thread Thomas Orgis
Am Wed, 28 Aug 2013 01:33:08 +0200 schrieb Thomas Orgis thomas-fo...@orgis.org: But let me try to get my own logic straight again. Damn, I shouldn't write such stuff late at night, the brain torn between wildly differing problems and the urge to fall into hibernation. Current lfs_wrap.c is

Processed: Re: Bug#720440: mpg123: mpg123 does not build LFS wrappers on kfreebsd-i386

2013-08-27 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: severity 720440 serious Bug #720440 [mpg123] mpg123: mpg123 does not build LFS wrappers on kfreebsd-i386 Severity set to 'serious' from 'important' stop Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 720440:

Bug#720440: mpg123: mpg123 does not build LFS wrappers on kfreebsd-i386

2013-08-27 Thread Reinhard Tartler
severity 720440 serious stop On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Thomas Orgis thomas-fo...@orgis.org wrote: The long-term fix would make the mpg123 build aware of that and trigger generation of _64 functions as direct api calls, without suffix as alias to those and _32 wrapper functions that map

Bug#720440: mpg123: mpg123 does not build LFS wrappers on kfreebsd-i386

2013-08-27 Thread Thomas Orgis
Am Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:49:08 +0200 schrieb Reinhard Tartler siret...@gmail.com: +if test .$ac_cv_sizeof_int32_t$ac_cv_sys_file_offset_bits$ac_cv_sizeof_off_t = .4no8; then + # Add dual-mode wrapper code.anyways + LFS_LOBJ=lfs_wrap.lo + ac_cv_sys_wide_off_t=yes +

Bug#720440: mpg123: mpg123 does not build LFS wrappers on kfreebsd-i386

2013-08-21 Thread Reinhard Tartler
Package: mpg123 Version: 1.15.3-1 Severity: important Justification: Broken binaries on release architecture kfreebsd-i386 According to the build logs in https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=mpg123arch=kfreebsd-i386ver=1.15.3-1stamp=1365806890, the configure script determines that off_t

Bug#720440: mpg123: mpg123 does not build LFS wrappers on kfreebsd-i386

2013-08-21 Thread Thomas Orgis
Well, those look fine to me: checking for size_t... yes checking for uintptr_t... yes checking for ssize_t... yes checking for off_t... yes checking for int32_t... yes checking for uint32_t... yes checking for int16_t... yes checking for uint16_t... yes checking size of size_t... 4 checking size

Bug#720440: mpg123: mpg123 does not build LFS wrappers on kfreebsd-i386

2013-08-21 Thread Reinhard Tartler
On Do, Aug 22, 2013 at 00:32:12 (CEST), Thomas Orgis wrote: Well, those look fine to me: checking for size_t... yes checking for uintptr_t... yes checking for ssize_t... yes checking for off_t... yes checking for int32_t... yes checking for uint32_t... yes checking for int16_t... yes